ABC/WaPo Tracking poll megathread

[EpicHistory]

+12 for Clinton when she's only up 3-5% in Florida, North Carolina, and Michigan? Not a chance, throw this in the dumpster.

[EpicHistory]

Because she's not up 3-5 in MI, and if internals are to believed, Trump is getting slaughtered in most Democratic-leaning swing states. It's absolutely plausible.

MRG found her at 5% in Michigan, and that doesn't answer the issue of North Carolina and Florida. If she is up by 12%, she's going to not only be leading in both of those by double digits but she should also be leading in Ohio and Iowa firmly. Every other poll we've got recently says she's not in any of these cases. As for internals, give me a break.

[EpicHistory]

a) NEVER believe any polling of MI... regardless of what it says.

b) this is not going to be a universal swing election, so no, there's no way of saying xx should be xx if this is the result.

You're welcome to think otherwise, but I don't think she's up 12, but close to it.

Even if we completely ignore MI, 3-5% in Florida and North Carolina is completely inconsistent with being up 12 nationally. It is, however, compatible with the ARG +7 and Morning Consult +6 we got recently. As for comparing it to other stuff, the polls we're getting from swing states don't show her being up 12, and the most recent Illinois and New York polls show Trump doing about average for a Republican in the former and a bit better in the case of the latter. So basically, there is no basis for a +12 HRC margin right now. None of the polls are showing where these mythical votes are coming from.  

[EpicHistory]

No one really knows how these play out.

I agree that it's not likely a 12 point lead, but there are a weird number of shifts that could take place among groups and states that could lead to this, but we're looking at closer to 8-10%.

There's no mixture of states one can make to get even a +10 result with Trump doing average in New York and Illinois, being ahead in Ohio, and having close races in North Carolina, Pennsylvania and North Carolina. This is also ignoring all the other recent polls which have the race far different from what is being portrayed from this tracker.  

[EpicHistory]

There is. But that's fine.

Then please enlighten me as to where these mythical votes are, because just saying "there is" is not a valid argument. There is no way Clinton can be up +12 when the Republican is doing average in Democratic strongholds like New York, Illinois and California (Last poll I saw for there) and have close races in the Swing states. The facts, and math in this case, do no lie.

[EpicHistory]

Well, for one thing, he's incredibly weak in Texas, a state Romney won by 16 points.  Also, not many polls have been conducted in the rockies and plains, but it seems likely that he'll underperform the numbers one would expect from a generic R in them.  We already know that he's going to do far worse than Mitt Romney did in Utah and Idaho.

The Rocky and Plains states are the most underpopulated states in the Union, and being weak in Texas would not explain +12 (Especially when he is doing almost 10% better in New York and is close in states like Florida and Pennsylvania).

[EpicHistory]

How do you explain Texas then?

I already have. Even a +3 Trump result there will not explain a +12 result for Clinton when Democratic states are showing about normal results for Republicans and the Swing states are close. +6 Clinton I can buy, but +12 is a pipe dream for the Red Avatars.

[EpicHistory]

He's not doing ten points better in New York nor is he close in Pennsylvania. Plus, Florida has been consistenly +3-4 D, something not seen in decades. Not even in 2008 or 1996.

Sienna Poll has Clinton only up 24% there, while Rasmussen and Quinnipac have PA at +3 and +6 respectively. As for Florida, that is a recent development. Back in September, if you will recall, Trump pulled ahead for a good chunk of the month. As well, Iowa and Ohio being in the Trump camp would counteract such a lead there.

[EpicHistory]

You have several major national polls putting her up in the range of +7-12. Excluding daily trackers, that jumps to an average of 9.9.

Clinton is greatly overperforming in blue states, Trump is underperforming in a lot of red states. Just not enough to lose them.

...Yet.

You've got the ARG, Morning Consult, YouGov and I think an NBC poll all showing 4-7%, which I accept. The IBD and LA Times trackers, however, show a Trump lead. To my knowledge, this is the only tracker which shows a Clinton lead and averaging out these trackers, as was noted upthread, puts it at around +6, which I believe is the actual number. As for Clinton over performing in Blue States, where are these mythical results? New York she is doing worse than Obama, average in Illinois and and California. The swing states are close. The math just doesn't add up to +12.